Customer Reviews

Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM Super Telephoto Lens for Canon SLR Cameras

5 star:		(37)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I've been using this lens about six years. In all that time, I can't remember ever shooting at any aperture smaller than f/5.6. It's amazingly sharp wide open and I've never had any reason to stop it down. When I first bought it, I used it on a tripod almost all the time. These days, I've started using it handheld and I can appreciate how well it handles. In good light, autofocus is fast and accurate. In low brightness and low contrast light, it gets a little slow and sometimes hunts. Not a real problem, just switch off the autofocus and use the superb manual focus ring. Images snap in and out of focus easily whether you do the focusing or you let the lens do it.

The lens is made like a tank. Mine has been subjected to a lot of use but it has never failed me. I sometimes use it with the Canon 1.4x Extender which makes it a 560mm f/8 lens. That combination does usually require a tripod but it is still a handy combination that retains great sharpness. I've also used it with the Canon 2x Extender as an 800mm f/11. It's a good idea to put it on a sturdy tripod and stop down a wee bit to get the best results.

If you can make use of the focal length and you can live with f/5.6 as the maximum aperture, I recommend it highly.

A 400 MM prime for about a grand? Neat.

I originally bought the 100-400 when I got my Canon body, as I wanted to do wildlife photography and wasn't even AWARE of this lens. I wish I had, because this lens is (1) a pound lighter than the 100-400 (two pounds vs three), (2) doesn't pump dust into my camera body when I adjust the zoom (as there isn't any zoom!), (3) is shorter and so easier to balance in my hand, (4) has a built-in lens hood -- the one with the 100-400 is separate and surprisingly flimsy for a $1500 product, (5) produces a somewhat better picture, and (6) it is a 77 mm L lens, which means I needn't buy a new set of UV and polarizing filters. (Many, but not all, "L"s are 77 mm diameter lenses.)

No, there's no IS, but -- and here's the important part -- it doesn't NEED it. That one pound and shorter length makes all the difference, at least for me. But if you're undecided, then keep in mind that: (1) the 100-400 has that zoom, which means that when you CAN shoot in, say, 100 mm, then you're doing it at F/3.5, and (2) if your hands are a bit wobbly then you can do a lot of hand-held shooting with the IS.

I wondered if I'd miss the zoom, but in all honesty there has only been one shot in the two years that I've shot with this lens that I wished that I could dial it back a bit. A great lens for the money.

I got this lens as a way to capture birds in flight and as a sports lens. Don't let the f/5.6 discourage you from buying this beauty, because in my experiences, it's one fast lens. The sharpness is absolutely stunning, with razor sharp edges!! The color and contrast are also remarkable!!

If you like photographing nature and sports, than this is the lens for you. Take my word for it, you won't regret it!!!

(...)

I purchased this lens primarily for hand-held bird photography for use on my Canon 40D DSLR. The lens is typical of Canon's L-series "white" family of professional level telephoto lenses, having very high standards of construction and superb optical performance, even with a 1.4X teleconverter, when conditions allow.

This lens is known as the "overlooked" Canon telephoto, since it does not garner the glamor of its cousins, the really long, heavy, faster, and vastly more costly professional telephoto lenses. It is also known as the "toy lens" by bird photographers who mostly use those really Big Berthas for long-distance close-ups with blurred-out backgrounds.

I selected it for the high image quality wide-open, relatively light weight, and shorter physical length, allowing both hand-held and tripod mounted use, as well as its modest cost (compared to all high quality alternatives). The image quality is extremely high, even wide open at f/5.6, although it does improve slightly stopped down a notch or two. The image contrast, flare resistance, and color saturation are also excellent for a telephoto lens of its "older" fixed focal length optical design.

It doesn't have image stabilization (IS), which maintains the reasonable price, but I don't consider that much of a handicap using Canon's DSLR's, which allow low-noise high ISO settings for higher shutter speeds under decent lighting conditions. Braced against a tree, fence post, etc., and especially in a sitting position with arms resting on knees, for example, the lack of IS is simply not an issue. The focus is extremely fast and accurate with the 40D's sensitive all X-type focus points, and the quickly removable tripod mount is of an excellent design that all tripod mounts should have.

As a bonus, on the 40D, the lens has the equivalent field of view of a 640mm f/5.6 telephoto lens! When a high quality teleconverter can be used, this becomes almost a 900mm f/8 telephoto (actually 896mm)! Not to exaggerate the point too much, but that's starting to get into the Big Bertha focal length range, under the right lighting conditions. Other pluses include the handy built-in sliding lens hood and the very high quality included lens case, which are extra cost items for Canon's non-L lenses.

The 400mm and 500mm zooms all seem to suffer from image softness at their maximum focal lengths, which I would be using 90% of the time anyway, so I elected to simply get the highest quality fixed 400mm I could find for a reasonable price. I also decided that I could live with 1 f-stop less than the much more expensive f/4's, since this lens can be shot wide-open at the same high quality as the f/4's stopped down - thus resulting in f/5.6 anyway.

This reasoning is even more appropriate when including the slightly less expensive, still high-quality, third party lenses, such as Tamron, Tokina, Sigma, etc. I reasoned that since I plan to use this lens for the rest of my life, why compromise in image quality for a few percent lower initial cost? I'm not slamming third party lenses in general by any means (I own a few), just in this case of comparing available alternatives (including other Canon's) to the selection of this particular Canon 400mm and its intended use.

I was blessed with several excellent bald eagle shots on what I had expected to be just an initial "practice with the new lens" outing. Because of this excellent lens, it turned out to be a very productive shoot. I would include a thumbnail photo of one of these shots, except I can't seem to be able to "paste" a small image into Amazon's review window.

For one that is willing to accept and operate within the parameters of this lens, that photographer will be handsomely rewarded by Canon's 400mm f/5.6L telephoto lens. In my case, it is exactly what I was looking for and it is exceeding all my expectations.

I started out with the sigma 50-500 and shot with that for about a year. Dissapointed with the fact that I had to stop it down to F8 to get acceptable results, I started to look for a new telephoto in the same range. Besides, I was always at the long end of the sigma anyway, so I didnt need the zoom that the sigma provided.

After reading pages up and pages down on the 100-400, the 300 f4 and the 400 5.6L, I landed on the latter.

It is true what they say, the lens is tack sharp at f5.6, you need to zoom into 200% to properly see any improvement to around f7-f8 (atleast on my copy). Contrast and color are both beautiful and the bokeh is awsome, although you need to get closer than with a 400 f2.8L to completely wash out the background. (the f2.8 L does cost you an arm and a leg though).

Build quality is excellent, my lens accidently took a dive from 6 feet when mounted to a 20D, the lens hit the floor with the lens shade (which was in the back-position) with a very foul sounding thud.

Result: No damage, no mis focus, not a single mark and the lens works just as well as it always has.

The lens is primarily a birding lens, but there is no problem using it on larger wildlife or even for portraits. It also performs well as an air show lens, giving you the cool pilot-in-seat pictures that the 70-200 owners can only gawk at.

I will never sell this lens, even if I in the future own the 600mm L, it's just too good to part with.

I've had this lens for about two weeks and it is truly one of Canon's classic L primes. I got it for nature shoots and it has produced "WOW" results. Don't worry about the f/5.6. It's as sharp at that as many lenses are a f/8. It's in the class of the 35L and the 135L.

Update in August 2010: I now use this lens also with an EOS 7D. After several thousand photos with it (flying birds etc.) I can say that it overall works nicely and is sharp enough for the 7D's crowded 18 Megapixel sensor. But with 7D it is much more critical as with the 50D that the AF is perfectly microadjusted with this lens.

My old review:

I use this lens for wildlife photography, in particular to shoot flying birds. I prefer prime lenses as I want tack sharp images to get with my EOS 50D the full tele extension of its smaller crop sensor. I was really thinking about saving a lot of my Euro cents for one of Canons super teles. But besides their enourmos price level (I am still an amateur!) I hated the idea to carry such a big & heavy lens in the wilderness, plus being completely fixed on using a tripod. Many of my best photos I catched with a handheld shot. After some research on the internet I came across this "forgotten" tele lens in Canon's portfolio, and some nice picture examples of wildlife photographers immediatly convinced me that I may have found what I am looking for. And I was right!

The EF 400 mm f/5.6 USM is Canon's most aged tele lens that is still in brandnew copies available (since 1993). It has only a small aperture of 5.6 and no image stabilization. So on paper it does not look sexy - but it did to me! With a weight of only 1250 g (44.1 oz) and a length of 257 mm (77 mm filters) it feels extremely well balanced in the hand with the 50D: take a handy bottle of water, add in your mind a camera body to it and you get a first idea of how it handles. In particular it's image quality turned out to be very good: I can use it fully open (f/5.6) and get already very sharp pictures. In terms of picture angle you get with Canon's crop sensors theoretically a veeeery long 640 mm tele. In reality, as it is so sharp, you get about this tele reach when there is enough daylight available - great! Finally, it's Bokeh is very nice - it's a real "L" lens!

Another big plus is its extremely quick, responsive and surprisingly precise USM autofocus drive that allows full time manual focusing: if you switch the drive to a long distance mode (8 m closest distance) you get focus hunting quite well under control even if the background is vivid (at least with the 50D). This is much more an issue with the smaller brother Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM Telephoto Lens for Canon SLR Cameras that I use very often, too.

As I shoot mostly sort of action with it and therefore need quick shutter speeds, I do not really miss image stabilization. It helps to get a quiter picture in the optical viewfinder, but the difference is not too much compared with the 300 mm with IS. You need of course to train a bit before you get successful handheld shots of, say, a flying bird, since your angle of view is quite narrow. But you can learn it successfully! Now I shoot with it and the 50D in combo more sharp action tele photos as with the 300 mm f/4.0L IS USM.

Mechanically, this lens is built like a tank. It has a nice retractable "push & screw" lens hood that protects the front lens well (so you do not need a light consuming protection filter). It's precise and very sensitive mechanical focus ring is a pleasure to use. In fact it has a double focus ring with two diameter sizes so even women with smaller hands than me (average male hand size I'd say :-) ) should be happy with this tele lens.

Overall it's price-performance ratio is super! I can highly recommend it to anyone who can get used to prime lenses instead of zooms.

Another pluses: since this lens does not look as impressive as Canon's big super tele lenses you get not bothered with "expert talks" by freaks when you want to shoot, not to talk. And: it does not radiate so much the "I am expensive please steal me" appeal... that's relaxing if you travel with it around.

Comparison with the EF 300 mm f/4.0L IS USM:

I use both lenses very often. They look like brothers and have both retractable lens hoods. The 300 mm is shorter and more sturdy as it's IS drive requires more space. But their characters are very different! With a closest distance of only 3.5 m and a small maximum magnification of 0.12x the 400 mm is a true tele lens (with a crop cam you can of course fill the picture easily with a bird, no worry). The 300 mm allows 1.5 m approach and then an maximum magnification of 0.24x - so it's a really great "distance macro". And at close distance it turns out that its IS is extremely useful, like a built-in tripod. As the 300 mm combines both decent macro and tele capabilities it turned out to be my standard lens in nature. The 400 mm serves me perfectly if I only need as much tele as possible. Both lenses make less than 2.5 kg in the gear so you really can carry both plus one ore two camera bodys and a few smaller lenses - even in a very rough environment when you need mobility.

I've used this lens now exclusively for nature photography, primarily birds. Especially birds in flight. The shots I get with this lens (paired with an EOS 50D) elicit comments from other photographers with words like "incredible", "that sharp as hell lens you have..", "amazing detail!". I've taken probably 100,000 photos with this lens out in the field in the 15 months I've owned it. You cannot go wrong with the lens. The auto-focus is extraordinarily fast, and when you switch it from 3.5m-infinity to 8.5m to infinity, the speed is almost instantaneous for shots at a distance. It also seems to eliminate "hunting" for focus if you miss your target initially. Just remember to switch it back to 3.5m-infinity for closer shots! Bird photography is extremely demanding and difficult. This lens gives me the ability to walk and carry a long lens with great "reach" pretty much anywhere. Like others who have reviewed this lens mention, I never stop it down from wide open. It's sharp to the edges, and there's not a hint of chromatic bleeding or halos anywhere. In good light, I can use very high shutter speeds while keeping ISO values low, enabling high detail and great stop motion capture shots of birds in flight. This is THE lens for hand-held bird and nature photography. Buy it. Don't even think about it.

I've been using this lens for over 3 years....I also have the 70/200L f4 I/S...Image quality are identical...It will be difficult to find better image quality at any size or price...It's a gem handheld...I use it in many rookeries, shooting fast flying birds...I've seen image quality of larger L lenses, but none of them are better than this lens, "period."...If you're looking for extreme quality, great price, and great handheld shots even without I/S...don't hesitate...You'll be glad you made this purchase...Also...if anyone tells you that this lens if not one of the best L lens ever made...then you should tell them to return their lens because they obviously got a rare lemon....

The only non-image stabilized offering of the three 400mm lenses Canon has, produces excellent images. This is a good lens for wildlife photography, especially on a cropped sensor Canon, which makes this lens a 640mm equivalent. The built-in hood is a nice alternative to the plastic ones you have to put on yourself (and remember to carry with you!), but it does add to the weight a bit, if that's a consideration. Canon includes a tripod ring, another good move on Canon's part, saves you an accessory to buy separately. But the lack of IS is a bit of a limitation for me, as the size and weight of the lens makes handholding it a problem - hand shake blur is evident except for shots taken in the very brightest of conditions. If handholding the larger lenses causes you problems in general, you might want to consider springing for an image-stabilized alternative. Otherwise this lens is a strong performer and I've been happy with it.